Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claims 21-28 are pending.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 11/27/2025 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: a scheduling unit module; a processing module; an adjusting module; and a training module in claim 26.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim limitation “a scheduling unit module; a processing module; an adjusting module; and a training module” in claim 26 invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not disclose any such elements or structure of those elements in the specification as claimed. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 21-28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to abstract idea without significantly more.
Step 1: Claim 21-25 are method type claims. Claims 26-27 are system and apparatus claims. Claim 28 is a program product/medium claim. Therefore, claims 21-28 are directed to either a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.
Claim 1, 2A Prong 1: A method for temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on distributed attention (mathematical calculation as disclosed in the specification par. 41-51), the method comprising:
recombining a temporal knowledge graph in a temporal serialization manner according to an order of timestamps in the temporal knowledge graph, and storing distribution of historical timestamp subgraphs into a sparse matrix (mathematical calculation as disclosed in specification par. 41-43);
constructing facts of predicted timestamps using an attention mechanism and assigning initial first-layer attention to the facts that are historically repeated (mathematical calculation as disclosed in specification par. 45-46);
building second-layer attention based on statistics of historical frequency information that evolves with the timestamps, and adjusting a score of the initial first-layer attention according to updates in knowledge (mathematical calculation as disclosed in specification par. 45-46); and
according to a parameter training strategy, training a model with multi-class tasks based on cross entropy loss (mathematical calculation as disclosed in specification par. 49-51);
wherein the step of constructing facts of predicted timestamps using an attention mechanism and assigning initial first-layer attention to the facts that are historically repeated comprises: performing mask filling on sequences of historically repeated facts corresponding to each of queries in a same batch (mental process of evaluation which can be performed with the aid of pencil and paper as disclosed in the specification par. 23);
computing a multi-headed attention from a query matrix Q to a key matrix K after said mask filling (mathematical calculation as disclosed in specification par. 24, 44);
supplementing deep semantic information using a fully connected feedforward neural network that comprises plural hidden units (mathematical calculation as disclosed in specification par.45);
performing layer normalization and residual connection on outputs from both the multi- headed attention and the fully connected feedforward neural network (mathematical calculation as disclosed in par. 45-46);
wherein the step of building second-layer attention based on statistics of historical frequency information that evolves with the timestamps, and adjusting a score of the initial first- layer attention according to updates in knowledge comprises (mathematical calculation as disclosed in par. 47-48:
superimposing frequency information statistics contained in new historical information; representing the updates in knowledge according to updated statistics of the historical frequency information, so as to adjust the initial first-layer attention (mathematical calculation as disclosed in par. 48);
based on the updated statistics of the historical frequency information, assigning an attention punishment to any fact that has never appeared historically(mathematical calculation as disclosed in par. 48); and
based on the updated statistics of the historical frequency information, assigning an attention reward to each of facts that have appeared historically (mathematical calculation as disclosed in par. 48).
2A Prong 2 and 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements: Claim do not disclose any additional limitation.
Claim 26 discloses similar elements as of claim 1 and therefore they are rejected under the same rational as of claim 1. The additional elements of claim 26 are addressed below.
2A Prong 2 and 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A system for temporal knowledge graph reasoning, a scheduling unit module; a processing module; an adjusting module; and a training module (the limitation disclose generic computer and software elements functioning as tool to perform the claimed abstract idea which is generic implementation of a generic computer as applying it as disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application and they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are as they are implementation of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 27 discloses similar elements as of claim 1 and therefore they are rejected under the same rational as of claim 1. The additional elements of claim 27 are addressed below.
2A Prong 2 and 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
An electronic device, characterized in that it comprises: one or more processors; a memory, for storing one or more computer programs; wherein the one or more computer programs, when executed by the one or more processors, cause the one or more processors to perform the method for temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on distributed attention (the limitation disclose generic computer and software elements functioning as tool to perform the claimed abstract idea which is generic implementation of a generic computer as applying it as disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application and they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are as they are implementation of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 28 discloses similar elements as of claim 1 and therefore they are rejected under the same rational as of claim 1. The additional elements of claim 28 are addressed below.
2A Prong 2 and 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Additional elements:
A non-transitory storage medium comprising computer-executable instructions, characterized in that the computer-executable instructions are used, when executed by a computer processor, to perform the method for temporal knowledge graph reasoning based on distributed attention (the limitation disclose generic computer and software elements functioning as tool to perform the claimed abstract idea which is generic implementation of a generic computer as applying it as disclosed in MPEP 2106.05(f))
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application and they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are as they are implementation of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 22, 2A Prong 1: The method of claim 21, wherein the step of recombining a temporal knowledge graph in a temporal serialization manner according to an order of timestamps in the temporal knowledge graph, and storing distribution of historical timestamp subgraphs into a sparse matrix comprises: partitioning the temporal knowledge graph into a series of knowledge subgraph sequences in a chronological order, so as to dimensionally reduce representation of the temporal knowledge graph from quadruples to triples (Mental process of evaluation with the aid of pencil and paper and can be also treated as mathematical function as disclosed in par. 49); and
according to records of the sparse matrix, predicting historical patterns of a to-be-predicted event in similar scenarios over time, and converting time consumption for historical queries into quantified space consumption (mental process of judgement or evaluation).
2A Prong 2 and 2B: Claim do not have any additional elements.
Claim 23, Step 2A prong 1: wherein the step of according to a parameter training strategy, training a model with multi-class tasks based on cross entropy loss comprises (mathematical function as disclosed in par. 51):
treating reasoning-based completion of the temporal knowledge graph as the multi-class tasks each having a number of classes equal to a size of an entity set of the multi-class task (mathematical function as disclosed in par. 50-51);
using a cross entropy loss function and
2A Prong 2 and 2B: This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application and do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
The additional elements: initializing at least one or more learnable parameters of a query transformation matrix, a key transformation matrix, and a linear transformation coefficient offset; using
The additional elements as disclosed above alone or in combination do not integrate the judicial exception into practical application and they are not sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception as they are as they are implementation of generic computer functions being implemented with generic computer elements in a high level of generality to perform the disclosed abstract idea above.
Claim 24, Step 2A prong 1: wherein the step of performing mask filling on sequences of historically repeated facts corresponding to each of the queries in the same batch comprises: using a relation-entity pair that has never appeared globally to fill any of the sequences that are shorter than a longest sequence in the batch, so as to generate a mask matrix using identification marks, and exclude the filled sequences that are shorter than the longest sequence in the batch from an attention operation (mental process of observation).
Claim 25, Step 2A prong 1: wherein the step of computing a multi- headed attention from a query matrix Q to a key matrix K after said mask filling comprises: performing a scaled dot-product attention operation, calculating a dot product using the query matrix Q and the key matrix K, and dividing the dot product by a scaling factor to obtain a weight matrix (mathematical calculation); and
calculating a dot product using the weight matrix and a value matrix V so as to obtain a value matrix associated with a representation attention, wherein a vector of every dimension in the value matrix represents an initial distributed attention assigned to each of the historically repeated facts (mathematical calculation).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/27/2025 with respect to 112(f) interpretation has been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument:
a) In remarks regarding 112(f) interpretation applicant argues “Claim 26 has been amended to recite "a scheduling module", "a processing module", "an adjusting module", and "a training module". Applicant submits that amended claim 26 does not invoke 35 U.S.C. 12(f) or 35 U.S.C. 12, sixth paragraph and cures any alleged defect. Therefore, Applicant respectfully requests withdrawal of the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b). Note that a claim limitation that does not use the phrase "means for" or "step for" will trigger the rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph does not apply. As amended claim 26 does not use the phrase "means for" or "step for", it should trigger this rebuttable presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph does not apply. Moreover, the present language is consistent with the recent 2014 Federal Circuit Decision in Superior Industries V. Masaba, wherein the language "configured to" was upheld as not triggering 112. In the present case, there is no suggestion that "scheduling module", "processing module", "adjusting module", and "training module" are used as a nonce or substitute for "means". Therefore, Applicant respectfully submits that amended claim 26 is not indefinite.
Response to argument:
Regarding argument (a) examiner respectfully disagrees with the applicant. The claim now recites limitation “"a scheduling module", "a processing module", "an adjusting module", and "a training module" that is performing a function without specifically disclosing the structure of the element. The tree prong analysis as disclosed in MPEP and above in the 112(f) interpretation analysis specifically disclose that claims can invoke 112(f) even if they do not have means for or step for. The Three prong analysis disclose in prong “(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and prong (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.”. Additionally MPEP 2181 specifically discloses exemplary generic placeholder terms that invoke 112(f) interpretation as disclosed “ The following is a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f): "mechanism for," "module for," "device for," "unit for," "component for," "element for," "member for," "apparatus for," "machine for," or "system for."”. Accordingly the claim as recited satisfies three prong analysis and therefore are properly treated as invoking 112(f). Additionally applicant’s argument regarding “recent 2014 Federal Circuit Decision in Superior Industries V. Masaba, wherein the language "configured to" was upheld as not triggering 112” does not appear to have any disclosure of claim analysis under 112(f) interpretation or invalidating any claim interpretation under 112(f) as argued.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR whose telephone number is (571)270-3169. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30am-4:30pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, David Wiley can be reached at (571) 272-4150. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ABDULLAH AL KAWSAR/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2127
